1 / 48

The Case for Local Foods

The Case for Local Foods. Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 17, 2007. Ohio Survey Core Project of the SRI. Outline of Presentation. This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data

Anita
Download Presentation

The Case for Local Foods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Case for Local Foods Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 17, 2007

  2. Ohio SurveyCore Project of the SRI

  3. Outline of Presentation • This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data • Highlight 4 noteworthy themes from the 2006 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture & Environmental Issues • Discuss characteristics of 5 consumer types, characterized by their interest in organic or local • Also consider a motivated food consumer group as well • Concluding observations

  4. 2006 Survey • Mail survey returned from 1,729 Ohioans • Response rate of 55% • Respondents compare favorably to known characteristics of Ohio population • A higher proportion of respondents were homeowners than is true of Ohio’s general population • Just over 3 percent of respondents resided on a farm

  5. Four Insights from the 2006 Statewide Survey

  6. #1: Must Prepare for Generational Transitions:Knowledge, participation & support of ag. consistently higher among older Ohioans

  7. Self-reported level of knowledge about how or where food is grown

  8. Percent “Very Knowledgeable” by region

  9. Percent “Not at all knowledgeable” by Age

  10. #2: Agriculture Generally Enjoys Widespread Support among Ohioans

  11. Views of Farming • Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio • 2006: 88 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 90 percent • 2002: 92 percent

  12. Ag & Economy • Ohio’s Economy will suffer if the state continues to lose farmers • 2006: 84 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 85 percent • 2002: 80 percent

  13. Views of Farmers • I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment • 2006: 63 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 67 percent • 2002: 60 percent

  14. Animal Welfare • In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed • 2006: 51 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 47 percent • 2002: 48 percent

  15. #3: Farmer-Nonfarmer Relationships Matter:Visiting with a farmer associated with increased support & reduced concerns(63% of Ohioans report having no conversations with farm household members)

  16. #4: Building Bridges to Nonfarmers—Participation in Farm & Rural “Recreation” Strongly Associated with Knowledge & Attitudes:Must be prepared for the consequence, though

  17. Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities

  18. Typology Analysis from the 2004 Statewide Survey & 2005 Motivated Consumer Study

  19. Research Context • Organic “industrialization” challenges some basic tenets of sustainable agriculture's vision • Decoupling of the link between organic and local • Research question • Who are the consumers that value the local and/or organic attributes?

  20. Ohioans Interest in Local and Organic Foods

  21. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods

  22. % frequently purchasing local and organic foods by region

  23. Why Consider Typologies • Understanding motivations behind consumption • Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market • See Hartman Group for ongoing market research & Consumer Profiles

  24. Ohio Types, based on interest in Local & Organic • Disinclined (19.2%)—rate both local and organic as not important factors when making food purchases • Moderately inclined (35.7%)—rate organic and local as somewhat important considerations

  25. Ohio types (cont.) • Locally inclined (20.2%)—rate local as important, but not organic • Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as important, but not local • Dual inclined (19.3%)—rate organic and local both as very important factors

  26. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods by type(% indicating frequently)

  27. Willingness to Pay More(% indicating WTP 10% or more)

  28. Disinclined (19 percent) • Food safety: • Lowest level of concern about food safety • Health • Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Demographics • Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio • Large proportion of suburbanites

  29. Moderately Inclined (36 percent) • Food safety: • Modest level of concern about food safety • Health • Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Modest to low social linkages to farmers

  30. Organically Inclined (6 percent) • Food safety: • High concern about food safety • Health • Strong belief that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Demographics • Youngest, highest income, most educated • Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home

  31. Organically Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Low level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • Relatively low rating of grown in Ohio attribute and modest rating of keeping a farmer in business • Fewest social ties to farmers

  32. Locally Inclined (20 percent) • Food safety: • Modest concern about food safety • Health • Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional

  33. Locally Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Strongest social linkages to farmers • High level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • High rating of grown in Ohio attribute and keep a farmer in business

  34. Locally Inclined (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 24% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market • Low frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer • Demographics • Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average • Slightly higher proportion of Northwest Ohioans

  35. Dual Inclined (19 percent) • Food safety: • Highest level of concern about food safety • Health • Strong agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • 82 percent indicate being health conscious

  36. Dual Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Highest level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • Highest concern about the treatment of animals in farming • Very high rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of keeping a farmer in business

  37. Dual Inclined (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 34% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market • Relatively high frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer • Demographics • Much older on average, less educated, lower income • More common city or small town resident; also relatively higher frequency in southeast • Much more likely to be women

  38. Data from a Known Group of Alternative Food System Consumers

  39. Motivated Consumers • Mail survey of household of a relatively long-lived neighborhood food co-op located in Central Ohio • Sample was all household co-op members allowing address to be used for mailing purposes • 304 responses (74% response rate) • Conducted Winter/Spring 2005

  40. Motivated Consumers • Food safety: • High level of concern about food safety (~Dual) • Health • Near unanimous agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Nearly all indicate being health conscious

  41. Motivated Consumers (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 33% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market (~Dual) • All members of food co-op • Demographics • Much younger, relative to average statewide respondent • Very highly educated (81% BA or more), Average income levels • Very liberal (all others types moderates) • 70% women

  42. Availability and Price Factors(% indicating very important factor)

  43. 3 Concluding Observations

  44. #1: We find 2 broad classes of local food system supporters Local only—strong interest in supporting farmers & Ohio farming Local (& organic)—Health, environment, broader spectrum of food & farming attributes

  45. #2: Price & Convenience remain important to both local & dual inclined Challenge of developing the local foods distribution infrastructure

  46. #3: Generational Transitions—challenge to both the local & dual sets Local—growing social distance from farming Dual—will younger be interested in cooking with whole foods?

  47. Questions? Contact Information: Jeff S. Sharp sharp.123@osu.edu 614-292-9410 http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu

More Related